Oh-oh. Your favorite darling eye guru is having a high blood pressure moment.
This is about to turn into a full on yikes-rant-fest, darlings.
So please do join me here today on the darling endmyopia bloglet, fellow darling non-believer in ‘genetic myopia’. Pull up a comfy chair and let’s together explore how a certain conspiracy theorist by the seemingly non-consequential name of Bill Otto has managed to somewhat annoy Otherwise Dignified VonJakensteen.
Important note: If you want to get started improving your own eyesight, I offer a number of courses, including options for one-on-one support with me personally. Check out the courses page for what’s currently available to help your eyeballs.
And for today we won’t even go on about the mainstream and selling lenses while ignoring all of known peer reviewed clinical science on myopia.
They have a massive and awesome profit motive, so that’s an understandable reason to pretend that science isn’t a real thing.
What is more curious, is certain types of individuals on the Interwebs who don’t have a reason to spend countless hours spreading nonsense. Conspiracy types who specialize in ignoring every last bit of biology insight that science has uncovered and has been published in science journals over the past 50+ years.
Let me introduce you to the conspiracy tinfoil hat du-jour (aka Bill Otto) from Quora.
Starting things off, somebody asks the question:
Can we prevent our children from developing myopia?
And this is what Bill Otto has to say on the matter:
Note what it says next to Billy’s name, too.
Interesting. Let’s recap:
Nothing whatsoever can be done to prevent myopia in children, close-up and myopia are unrelated, and it’s “unknown” what causes the eyeball to elongate. Also the by-far largest and most well researched science based resource for myopia control, is all myths and disinformation.
That’s fascinating stuff, truly next level.
Here’s a guru response, mostly all that needs to be said for this case:
15.000 times, no.
Realistically this post could (and should) end here.
Of course there is a scientifically established correlation between close-up and myopia.
It’s so much of a correlation that there is a well known clinical term for it. Near induced transient myopia, as if it could be possibly any more ironically descriptive. And in the same breath that Bill ignores the entirety of the massive body of clinical evidence, he insists that there is some apparent need to disparage our resources (which ironically, exists in no small part to highlight the exact clinical science Bill wants to pretend away).
There’s also the part of how “we” don’t know what causes the eye to grow longer, according to Bill.
But we most certainly do know.
The scientific community knows.
Tens of thousands of clinical science references cover the topic ad nauseam.
It’s called axial elongation. One tiny little search on Google Scholar would clearly show that science knows full well and exhaustively about axial change of the eye. Science, everybody writing about it, it’s been beaten to death as a science topic. But not Bill Otto, next level conspiracy theorist.
This is all inconceivable news, and also “disinformaion”, according to Bill.
Is the earth flat still, Bill?
Are we all being evil proponents of a heretical spherical earth?
So why then, is Jakey so annoyed. This is obviously just another brilliant Internet conspiracy theory genius who knows so very much about clinical science that he doesn’t even need to know any of the basic clinical terms for anything.
It’s not any of that. It’s this, that really puts Bill over the top:
Bill should truly know better, according to his credentials.
He does seem to have a lot of time to spread genius insights on Quora. Seven million content views. Top writer. This guy is spreading anti-science ideas faster than cockroaches after a global nuclear war. And he claims to be an optical physicist, a man who should have the general ability to type a search query into Google Scholar.
And still I wouldn’t mind. But then he also insists on disparaging endmyopia specifically, without provocation, grounds, or basis. That seems unnecessary and spiteful.
Is there a specific need to speak ill about a site dedicated to the massive, huge, overwhelming body of evidence? The endless thousands of citations of peer reviewed, published clinical science, over decades and decades, that Bill somehow wants to pretend don’t exist?
I am curious whether our darling friends of endmyopia, who appreciate and use these resources to recover their eyesight, agree. What was it again Bill?
“Myths, disinformation, nonsense”.
And lastly ….
Bill Otto wears glasses.
-Jake (who is also on Quora)